Porras v. State

651 So. 2d 183, 1995 WL 68803
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 22, 1995
Docket94-2368
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 651 So. 2d 183 (Porras v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Porras v. State, 651 So. 2d 183, 1995 WL 68803 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

651 So.2d 183 (1995)

Steven S. PORRAS, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 94-2368.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

February 22, 1995.
Rehearing Denied March 29, 1995.

Miller & Russell and Edgar Miller and David A. Russell, Coral Gables, Lawrence H. Schwartz, Miami, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Doquyen T. Nguyen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before NESBITT, COPE and GERSTEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Steven S. Porras appeals the trial court's order revoking his community control and imposing a prison sentence. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

As to point I, the State confesses error. The written order varies from the trial court's oral pronouncement by making findings that the defendant had committed the offenses of obstructing justice, and loitering and prowling. At the hearing below, the State withdrew those claims and accordingly, the trial court did not make any finding of such violations. The order under review is reversed insofar as the written order varies from the trial court's oral pronouncements and remanded for correction of the written order. Defendant need not be present for that purpose.

As to point II, we affirm. It is undisputed that the defendant was away from his residence without permission, contrary to the terms of the community control order. This is a sufficient basis for the revocation of community control. Dietz v. State, 534 So.2d 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Royal v. State, 508 So.2d 1313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Whether, under the circumstances, the defendant's violation should have been excused was a matter for the discretion of the trial court. The revocation of community control is affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Brittany Nichole Rossi v. State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2025
Burt v. State
931 So. 2d 1005 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Rega v. State
733 So. 2d 602 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Lopez v. State
722 So. 2d 936 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Scott v. State
712 So. 2d 1275 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Thompson v. State
711 So. 2d 1385 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Davis v. State
706 So. 2d 1381 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Smith v. State
705 So. 2d 1033 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Llumbet v. State
698 So. 2d 381 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Wilson v. State
678 So. 2d 12 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Daniels v. State
680 So. 2d 490 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Allen v. State
666 So. 2d 259 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
State v. Bock
659 So. 2d 1196 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
651 So. 2d 183, 1995 WL 68803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porras-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.